Attachment, Consent, and Relationship Structure
Beneath the Surface Therapy
Journal · Attachment & relationships
Attachment, Consent, and Relationship Structure
The person matters more than the label or the role.
A focused companion on attachment across monogamy, consensual non-monogamy, chosen relationships, and negotiated power.
Keep in mind: A relationship label cannot establish consent, safety, or attachment security. The actual agreements and behavior matter.
Structure is not a diagnosis
Attachment is often explained through a two-person relationship. A person’s meaningful connections may also include multiple partners, co-parents, chosen family, long-distance relationships, or other consensually negotiated arrangements.
Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) describes arrangements in which the people involved agree that romantic or sexual exclusivity is not required. Research does not support treating CNM itself as evidence of poorer psychological well-being or relationship quality. (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015)
Monogamy does not establish secure attachment, and polyamory does not establish insecurity. Clinical attention belongs with the actual concern: consent, reliability, autonomy, distress, and how people respond to one another. Assuming CNM causes every difficulty can itself be a harmful therapy practice. (Schechinger et al., 2018)
Different bonds can carry different expectations
A network of relationships is not one undifferentiated bond. Research comparing partners in polyamorous relationships finds differences across particular connections. Another study linked attachment insecurity with a specific partner to functioning in that relationship, rather than to all concurrent relationships equally. (Balzarini et al., 2017; Balzarini et al., 2019; Moors et al., 2019)
It can help to separate agreements within one relationship from agreements affecting the wider network. These are topics for explicit conversation—not a model every relationship must follow.
Within one relationship
Communication, intimacy, time together, privacy, and responsibility for repair.
Across the wider network
Scheduling, shared spaces, sexual-health agreements, and what information can be shared.
Where power enters
Finances, housing, caregiving, legal status, hierarchy, and whose preferences carry more weight.
Who is involved in repair
Who is responsible for a particular impact and whether direct contact between other partners is appropriate or wanted.
A negotiated role does not explain the whole person
Power also appears in everyday relationships: whose schedule sets the pace, who controls resources, whose discomfort ends a conversation, or whose account becomes the accepted story. In consensual kink and BDSM, some power dynamics may be made deliberate, negotiated, and bounded.
Research does not support treating BDSM interests as inherently pathological or as proof of childhood trauma. That is different from saying every interaction is healthy. Consent, capacity, voluntariness, impact, and the ability to withdraw still need attention. (Brown et al., 2020; Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013)
Submission is not automatically fawning. Dominance is not automatically pathological control.
Clinical reviews emphasize understanding the function and context of a consensual role while distinguishing it from abuse. The useful questions are not simply “Who leads?” or “Who follows?” but “Can no be heard? Can yes change? Can someone pause without punishment?” (Dunkley & Brotto, 2018; Dunkley & Brotto, 2020)
Agreements need to work when communication becomes difficult
A person who loses access to speech under stress may need an agreed nonverbal signal. Someone who needs solitude afterward may need a different kind of care from someone who wants contact. A preference should be discussed rather than assumed from a role or label.
A safeword or agreement is not a guarantee that consent will be respected. Research on BDSM consent norms reinforces the importance of assessing actual behavior, rather than relying on the existence of community language alone. (Dunkley & Brotto, 2020; Tarleton et al., 2025)
A few questions for private reflection
- Which agreements belong to one relationship, and which affect other people?
- What information is mine to share—and what requires someone else’s permission?
- Can a limit or changed answer be expressed without pressure or punishment?
Reflection is optional. You do not need to send answers or a personal history through a website inquiry.
Individual psychotherapy · Private pay
Make room for your own experience.
Trauma-focused care can address your concerns without treating a consensual identity, relationship structure, or interest as the explanation for every difficulty. Assessment begins with the person and the presenting need.
Explore EMDR intensives with assessment, preparation, individualized pacing, and integration planning. Psychotherapy is provided exclusively through telehealth for adults physically located in California.
Start with the prescreener on the intensive page. Jillian reviews your inquiry before offering a free 15-minute consultation when appropriate. Submitting does not book an appointment or confirm acceptance for treatment.
For EMDR-trained clinicians: focused professional EMDR case consultation is a separate, non-credit-bearing service—not personal psychotherapy, clinical supervision, or EMDRIA credentialing consultation.
About the author
Jillian Ellison, M.A., LMFT 156597
Jillian is an EMDRIA Certified Therapist and founder of Beneath the Surface Therapy. Her practice focuses on private-pay individual EMDR intensives through California telehealth and professional EMDR case consultation for clinicians.
Meet Jillian →Sources & further reading
Research citations support the explanatory material. The examples, scripts, and reflection prompts are educational synthesis—not quotations, diagnostic tools, or individualized treatment instructions.
References · 10 sources
Balzarini, R. N., Campbell, L., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Atkins, N. (2017). Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0177841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177841
Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Campbell, L., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Holmes, B. M. (2019). Comparing relationship quality across different types of romantic partners in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1749–1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7
Brown, A., Barker, E. D., & Rahman, Q. (2020). A systematic scoping review of the prevalence, etiological, psychological, and interpersonal factors associated with BDSM. Journal of Sex Research, 57(6), 781–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1665619
Dunkley, C. R., & Brotto, L. A. (2018). Clinical considerations in treating BDSM practitioners: A review. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(7), 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2018.1451792
Dunkley, C. R., & Brotto, L. A. (2020). The role of consent in the context of BDSM. Sexual Abuse, 32(6), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219842847
Moors, A. C., Ryan, W., & Chopik, W. J. (2019). Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722
Schechinger, H. A., Sakaluk, J. K., & Moors, A. C. (2018). Harmful and helpful therapy practices with consensually non-monogamous clients: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(11), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000349
Tarleton, H. L., Mackenzie, T., & Sagarin, B. J. (2025). Consent norms in the BDSM community: Strong but not inflexible. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 54(2), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03038-6
Wismeijer, A. A. J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2013). Psychological characteristics of BDSM practitioners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 1943–1952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12192
This article provides general education, not individualized diagnosis, treatment, crisis support, or relationship safety planning. Reading it does not establish a therapist–client relationship. Clinical decisions require assessment by a qualified professional.